Is The GOP Tent Big Enough?

A schism appears in the ranks

Editor's Note: Thomas's commentary is in blue and Marcie's is in purple.

Tony Perkins of the Family Research Council and Dr. James Dobson recently held an evangelical conference in Salt Lake City. The subject was not faith, or the Bible, or anything religious. The subject was political in nature, and the potential Republican nominee for President, specifically. In their opinion none of the main frontrunners -- Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, or Fred Thompson -- are their ideal nominee for the sole reason that all three have a questionable record on the issue of abortion. While Governor Romney and Senator Thompson were not mentioned specifically, the "values voters" -- evangelical Christian conservatives and social conservatives -- have drawn a bead on Mayor Giuliani. He is admittedly pro-choice, and they have decided that if he is the nominee they will break from the GOP and support a third-party candidate. We respect them for having the courage of their convictions, but the decision itself lacks any semblance of logic, and speaks of their intense emotion over this issue. From where we stand their argument comes from pride -- cutting off one's nose to spite their face. Furthermore, this is the sort of tantrum we expect out of Democrats; a sort of "fine-we-will-take-our-bat-and-ball-and-go-home-if-we-do-not-get-our-way" antic. Children act like this, not reasoned adults capable of discussing their gripes.

Exhibit A -- Third party candidates have no chance

We know a lot of people who always like to look to third-party candidates as the solution to our political woes, but in our current system these candidates don't stand a chance. They're rarely allowed to participate in presidential debates. They can't raise the funds that the two main parties can (due mostly to the fact they lack the party fundraising apparatuses), and their candidates have never had a platform that makes people jump up to support them. As a matter of fact, the last three third-party candidates have been more along the lines of a spoiler. Ross Perot served Bill Clinton's successes well by drawing votes away from George H. W. Bush and Bob Dole in 1992 and 1996, respectively. In 2000 Ralph Nader served as the spoiler to Al Gore. In 2004, Mr. Nader didn't have nearly the impact as many pundits had predicted, but it was still enough to hand John Kerry a loss. For the most part a third-party candidate will serve only to draw votes away from one side or the other, and based on the strategy that the values voters have, they will draw from the Republican nominee -- not by much, but likely enough -- which clears the way for a Democrat to be the next resident of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

Exhibit B -- Their concerns are illogical

The value voters claim that because Mayor Giuliani is admittedly pro-choice that he cannot be trusted with the issue of abortion. They do not believe that he will appoint the right sort of Justice to the Supreme Court, or at the federal appellate level. Nor do they believe that he would actively pursue the overturning of Roe v. Wade with the same sort of zeal that they do. What they fail to grasp is that all the president can do is appoint jurists to the bench, and hope for the best. Mayor Giuliani has stated, repeatedly, on the record that he would seek jurists with the same sort of philosophy as Justices Roberts, Alito, Thomas, and Scalia. In our view that is rock-solid judicial philosophy; one in which the justices abide by the Constitution itself, and not invent the law out of thin air. We dislike the procedure of abortion as much as the values voters do, but we also know that the President is constrained in acting on the issue. His powers are defined, and Mayor Giuliani has promised voters that he will not appoint activists to the high court. Given that his primary advisor in such decision would be former solicitor general Ted Olsen, we can virtually take his promise to the bank.

Exhibit C -- Look at the risks involved with the folly:

There are six Supreme Court jurists that are age 68 and older:

Justice John Paul Stevens is 87.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg is 74.
Justice Anthony Kennedy is 71.
Justice Antonin Scalia is 71.
Justice Stephen Breyer is 69.
Justice David Souter is 68.

The next President could have as many as four appointments coming during their term in office. These justices are anything but spring chickens, and we know more than one is not in good health. So imagine if "President Hillary Clinton" or any of the other candidates on the Democrat side were elected. Abortion is the least of our worries in the justice system right now. Lawyers continue to challenge the detainment of illegal enemy combatants at Guantanamo Bay with demands of habeas corpus rights. Environmental lawyers are presenting cases at the federal level that side with the fallacy that global warming exists, and mankind is responsible for it rather than admitting that this is part of a continuing cycle. ACLU lawyers march into court right around Christmas time and Easter time to end any sort of "overtly religious" displays on public grounds. Some cases have even challenged these displays on church grounds; a blatant violation of the First Amendment's Establishment Clause. The sort of justices appointed by Democrats will be of the activist mindset, and will rule wrongly on case after case. Furthermore, if they do get the chance to appoint jurists, they will make sure Roe is never overturned.

Exhibit D -- Abortion is a non-issue

The values voters blame "hawks" in the Republican Party for the change in rhetoric, and for the lack of attention to values, in general. We did not want this war. It was delivered to our doorstep. They claim it is time we forget about history, and move on with our lives. The problem with such an idea is that we would, in essence, put the war on the back burner; this is where it was prior to 9/11, and we see where that got this nation. Such ideas -- treating terrorism with little attention -- left us with 2,996 innocent people killed on that Tuesday morning in September. It reminded the nation that we still have enemies in this world, and it put us on a war footing. The war on terrorism is the single, most important issue facing the Presidential contenders in 2008. Forget the Democrats because their idea is that we can negotiate an end to the war with our enemies. The Republicans understand that we must stay on the offensive and deliver defeat after defeat to our enemy to win this war. In short if America loses this war, abortion will be the least of our problems, and their little pet issue will be non-existent as we fight to protect our society from destruction.

Exhibit E -- Don't believe the polls

Shortly after this story broke Rasmussen conducted a poll asking churchgoers if they would support a third-party candidate over the Republican nominee if that candidate was a strong proponent of pro-life issues. According to that poll 27% said yes they would. Polls are a nice barometer to have in a moment-to-moment world, but they really don't gauge public opinion the way many people believe they do. They assess opinions based on an issue that is in the forefront of a news cycle. Ask the same question two or three months from now and the results will admittedly be different; usually much less support or dissent than the original poll showed. Most people, in general, have the attention span of a nanosecond, and can comment on things in the here and now, but will likely change their views once the debate is ongoing, and as calmer heads prevail in the argument. A recent Pew poll shows that voters still believe national security and the war are the predominant issues for 2008 by a whopping 40-45%. This is the Democrat's Achilles Heel. They know they're weak on this subject, and voters know Republicans aren't. More importantly the three frontrunners on the Republican side are all hawks; promising to carry on the fight in the war while Democrats want to "redeploy" our forces to places where they won't be able to respond quickly and adequately to attacks planned or executed. When push comes to shove, voters won't support Dr. Dobson or Mr. Perkins. They will support the person who can effectively protect the nation from harm.

We appreciate the input of the values voters. they have the pulse of our party's conscience. We are not asking them to give up their fight to right the wrongs perpetuated by the courts, but we are asking them to think about what they are doing. Their strategy will guarantee a Democrat is elected in 2008, and dig the cultural battle lines even deeper than they are now. Additionally, with a Democrat in the White House the values voters will be assured defeat after defeat on social issues. We will be handed a Democrat agenda that further divides this nation, and sends the Republican party in the political wilderness for years to come. (If Hillary is elected, expect eight years of her, ladies and gentlemen, because her and her operatives will not go quietly into the night after one term.) The only logical and sensible choice for them is to vote for whomever is chosen in the primaries. They do not have to vocally support the candidate or even campaign for them. Just help others get to the polls and pull the lever on election day for that nominee. We understand their gripes about the candidates, but there will never be a candidate we agree with 100%. That breeds a dictatorship, not a healthy democracy. (Remember that the thugs of the world receive 100% support at election time, and usually under the threat of force if it does not happen. Ask the Iraqis what their elections were like under Saddam.) The tent is big enough for all of us, but there are times where more reasoned voices must lead, and others must support. The party cannot serve two masters, and that is what these people are asking of the party. Your honors, we rest our case.

He is a scholar of history, especially American history, and the United States Constitution. She has finished her undergrad studies, graduating with a BA in English and history and will move onto law school this fall where she will specialize in Constitutional Law. Together, Thomas and Marcie form the vanguard of conservative opinion at Hamilton, Madison, and Jay -- a blogging site devoted to advancing the conservative cause by challenging the liberal lies and deceit spread by the media, and espoused by the Left in general. Both are expert debaters, and have beaten many liberals into submission with their collective wit, and unmatched knowledge. The pair is married, and resides in Arizona

Archives of "Throwing Down the Gauntlet"

Send an e mail to Thomas Clark and Marcie Packard

Check out Thomas and Marcie's blog: Hamilton, Madison, and Jay